CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ7313244
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

KEVIN WRIGHT vs. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to sanction the defendant's attorneys $500 for misrepresenting the record and failing to follow procedural rules. The defendant's petition for reconsideration selectively quoted and omitted material facts from medical depositions, thereby distorting the evidence. Specifically, the defendant misrepresented a QME's opinion on industrial causation and applicant's stress levels. This failure to fairly state the evidence and provide specific record citations violates WCAB rules and warrants sanction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5813cumulative trauma injuryindustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationPanel QMEWCJRules of Practice and Procedurematerial misrepresentationselective quotation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1981

Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against his supervisor, Manobianco, and employer, Maimonides Medical Center, following an alleged defamatory statement. Defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed several affirmative defenses, including Workers' Compensation and absolute privilege. The appellate court reversed the order in part, striking the defense of qualified privilege for specific causes of action and the Workers' Compensation defense where employer participation in intentional torts was alleged. However, the Workers' Compensation defense was upheld for claims based on respondeat superior and those where the injury was deemed compensable, even partially. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law abrogates common-law remedies for such injuries, leaving recourse to the Legislature for perceived harsh outcomes.

DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeRespondeat SuperiorCoemployee ImmunityEmployer LiabilityCommon Law Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bueno

Chief Judge Lippman dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that they misinterpreted Penal Law § 120.05 (3) regarding assault in the second degree. The dissent contends that the majority incorrectly focuses on the victim's activity rather than the defendant's specific intent to prevent an emergency medical technician (EMT) from performing a lawful duty. Lippman asserts that while intent to injure may have been present, the evidence was insufficient to prove the higher standard of specific intent required by the statute to interfere with the EMT's duties. The dissent also criticizes the majority's application of *People v Steinberg* to infer intent solely from the outcome of the act, stating that surrounding circumstances must also be considered. Concluding that the rule announced by the majority conflicts with the plain meaning of the statute, Chief Judge Lippman would reverse the Appellate Division's order.

AssaultSecond Degree AssaultPenal LawSpecific IntentLawful DutyEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTIntent to PreventPhysical InjuryCriminal Law
References
2
Case No. 92 Cr. 712
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1993

United States v. Wooden

Anthony Wooden, a postal carrier, appealed his conviction for obstructing and retarding mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1701. Magistrate Judge Kathleen A. Roberts had found Wooden guilty after nearly 950 pieces of unsorted, unsequenced, and stale mail were discovered in relay boxes on his route. Wooden admitted to delaying the mail with the intention of delivering it later but argued a lack of specific intent due to being an inefficient employee. District Judge Sweet, presiding over the appeal for the Southern District of New York, affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The court found sufficient evidence that Wooden knowingly and willfully obstructed the mail, rejecting the defense's argument regarding specific intent.

Mail obstructionPostal carrierCriminal appealSufficiency of evidenceSpecific intent18 U.S.C. § 1701Federal Rules of Criminal ProcedureWillful misconductDelay of mailPostal Service
References
31
Case No. ADJ6461450
Regular
Apr 23, 2012

ANDREW HADDAD vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERKLEY SPECIALTY

This case involves a notice of intention to issue sanctions against applicant's attorney, Christopher Ginocchio, and his firm, Leviton, Diaz & Ginocchio, under Labor Code section 5813. The sanctions are proposed due to the attorney's alleged bad-faith actions in his answer to the defendant's petition for reconsideration. Specifically, the attorney cited a deposition transcript not in evidence and failed to comply with evidence citation rules. The Board intends to impose a $500 sanction unless good cause is shown within 15 days.

Labor Code section 5813California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10561bad-faith actionsfrivolousunnecessary delaydeposition transcript not in evidenceRule 10842evidentiary statementsspecific references to the recordexhibit number
References
3
Case No. ADJ103216 (LAO 0867367) MF ADJ7061769 ADJ7167560
Regular
Jun 13, 2013

ROSA PALAFOX vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a petition filed by defendant's attorney, Martin Reiner, Esq. The Board found Reiner's petition to be frivolous and lacking specific legal or factual grounds, waiving any valid objections. Due to Mr. Reiner's history of filing successive, meritless petitions, the Board is issuing a notice of its intention to impose sanctions up to $2,500 for each of three identified filings, totaling up to $7,500, in addition to prior sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityAttorney's FeesPenaltyFrivolous PetitionsBad Faith ConductSanctions
References
10
Case No. ADJ7448960
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

Marco Altamirano vs. Yafa, A Pen Company, Inc., Employers Compensation Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the dismissal of lien claimants' claims for failure to pay lien activation fees. The Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimants' representatives, Qualified Billing and Collections, LLC and Diego S. Plasencia. This action is due to alleged misrepresentations in the Petition for Reconsideration regarding proof of payment of the required fees. The Board found that the petition contained false or misleading statements and lacked specific record references, constituting sanctionable conduct.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Petition for ReconsiderationWCJSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Bad Faith ActionsFrivolous Tactics
References
2
Case No. ADJ7586945
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

MICHAEL GERTH vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding that the defendant's petition contained material misrepresentations and presented arguments "indisputably without merit." Specifically, the defendant misrepresented evidence regarding the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion on injury AOE/COE and incorrectly claimed the applicant's employment was terminated for cause. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,200 against the defendant and their attorneys for frivolous tactics and misstatements of law, particularly regarding the non-apportionment of medical treatment costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerAOE/COETemporary Total DisabilityKnee Replacement SurgeryLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Bad Faith Actions
References
7
Case No. ADJ2023756 (SAC 0323234)
Regular
Aug 30, 2013

VICTORIA BRESHEARS vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Reconsideration due to discrepancies regarding the timeliness of its filing. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, requiring the employer to provide proof of timely electronic filing via EAMS, specifically the Batch ID and submission date/time. If the employer fails to demonstrate the petition was filed before 5:00 PM on July 8, 2013, it will be dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFindings and OrderWCJEAMSElectronic Adjudication Management SystemBatch IDTimely FiledProof of Service
References
2
Case No. ADJ7421461
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

Bryan Cruz vs. KLLM TRANSPORTATION, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal order for failure to prosecute, finding that the applicant's attorneys' petition lacked merit and potentially constituted bad-faith tactics. The Board is issuing a notice of intent to sanction applicant's attorneys, jointly and severally, for up to $1,500 for frivolous actions and tactics, specifically noting a pattern of similar filings. The Board also noted the applicant's attorneys consented to the dismissal at a hearing where the applicant did not appear, and the petition for reconsideration failed to address these critical points. Sanctions are intended to address violations of rules regarding frivolous filings and willful non-compliance.

Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10582Failure to ProsecuteSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Rule 10561Bad Faith ActionsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,915 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational